Swarovski NL 8x42 - First Impressions (1 Viewer)

[SeldomPerched]

Yesterday it was an excellent day for birding: sun rather low over the pasture lands, most of them flooded, the river Rhine flooded in many places, hundreds may be thousands of different birds gathering on and around the flooded pasture lands. Sun and wind caused many relfecting aves over the water surfaces Ideal for using binoculars and investigating its possible problems.
It was a long and very enjoyable walk. I took the NL pure 8x42, hesitated bbecause of the severe glare problems discussed on this forum.
Shocking experience: whatever I tried: no glare, flare, internal reflections did turn up.
Fortunately my wife accompanied me and she could give immediate medical help, since I was completely devastated: I do not see any glare, unwanted reflections or anything other unwanted ghost images.
What to do? Return the binoculars to Swarovski and ask the company to insert a little glare, so I am accepted by the Birdforum community?
Then some questions arose in my mind, but I am not able to share them yet.
I think it is time for a nice coffee.
Gijs van Ginkel

HI Gijs, sounds like a case of forgetting to take off the objective covers! Otherwise yours must be fakes and unsaleable among the cognoscenti.

I always wondered why there are so many more posts on the Sw forum than elsewhere. The flare factor must be the reason... it's the only way to achieve 100% blindingly apparent transmission. Without that competition Zeiss could still be selling HT 42s!

Tom

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Tom, post 941,
I had not the courage to inform the readers on this forum, that Swarovski supplied me with a set of transparent platinum objective covers that keep all glare/flare/reflections from entering the binoculars. On the inside a movie of flying birds is shown, so you never see any unwanted reflections. I did not want to tell Henry, since he might become envious that he only received the NL for free and had to pay the full amount for the objective covers.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[PeterPS]

Tom, post 941,
I had not the courage to inform the readers on this forum, that Swarovski supplied me with a set of transparent platinum objective covers that keep all glare/flare/reflections from entering the binoculars. On the inside a movie of flying birds is shown, so you never see any unwanted reflections. I did not want to tell Henry, since he might become envious that he only received the NL for free and had to pay the full amount for the objective covers.
Gijs van Ginkel

I have heard rumors about augmented reality binoculars that "allow augmentation of live imagery with aerial and terrain based synthetic objects, vehicles, people and effects". Now you have given Swaro another idea: a complete virtual reality-based binocular system that will make the walks in the nature a thing of the past.

 

[elkcub]

Yesterday it was an excellent day for birding: sun rather low over the pasture lands, most of them flooded, the river Rhine flooded in many places, hundreds may be thousands of different birds gathering on and around the flooded pasture lands. Sun and wind caused many relfecting aves over the water surfaces Ideal for using binoculars and investigating its possible problems.
It was a long and very enjoyable walk. I took the NL pure 8x42, hesitated bbecause of the severe glare problems discussed on this forum.
Shocking experience: whatever I tried: no glare, flare, internal reflections did turn up.
Fortunately my wife accompanied me and she could give immediate medical help, since I was completely devastated: I do not see any glare, unwanted reflections or anything other unwanted ghost images.
What to do? Return the binoculars to Swarovski and ask the company to insert a little glare, so I am accepted by the Birdforum community?
Then some questions arose in my mind, but I am not able to share them yet.
I think it is time for a nice coffee.
Gijs van Ginkel

After reviewing this report carefully I've concluded that you must be suffering from "functional or hysterical blindness," and, sadly, you're also in a complete state of denial. Try not to obsess about it.

✊☝️

functional blindness​

visual deterioration without any apparent change or disease affecting the structural integrity of the visual system: ... Despite the symptoms, the pupils continue to react to light, and the patient automatically avoids (i.e., is able to detect and thereby avoid) objects that would cause injury. Complete functional blindness is rare. The condition was formerly known as hysterical blindness or psychic blindness.

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

I start to realise that becoming envious is a strong emotion, but gentlemen drink a strong cup of coffee, take an ice-cold bath and the world will undoubtedly look better for you.
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[jan van daalen]

I found out that viewing through a NL Pure with closed objective covers is the solution to avoid glare......

Jan

 

[SeldomPerched]

I found out that viewing through a NL Pure with closed objective covers is the solution to avoid glare......

Jan

Jan, add a rainguard to make absolutely sure, especially if you wear glasses for viewing.

Tom

 

[Troubador]

Jan, add a rainguard to make absolutely sure, especially if you wear glasses for viewing.

Tom

And to keep your eyes really safe from the blinding glare, should the objective covers and rainguard fall off, wear a welder's helmet with the dark eye protection:
Lee

 

[Aquaplas]

As i read the posts here about the Glare in the NL for me is now interresting what are the People who have the Glare Issue says about the other Up or Downsides of the NL. I will understand how good they mean The NL from longe viewing sessions. I have a NL and there much other Things i think they are worth to tell.
Bye the Way. I have never seen a Bino who is absolut Glear Free! Also no Nocti or SF. The Glear Free Crone i would give the 7x42 Dyalith, and also there is some Glare...

 

[PeterPS]

I have never seen a Bino who is absolut Glear Free! Also no Nocti or SF.

I suggest you try a Zeiss Victory FL 10x56----I could not notice any glare when using them even in the most difficult situations (and that without making use of the great suggestions in the previous posts like covering both the objective lenses and the oculars....). I have never tried an FL 8x56 but I would expect they are very glare resistant too.

 

[dries1]

If you don't like the NL go buy the SF then, unless the high $$$ price is what is generating many the negative/glare opinions here. To me there must really be viewers who get up in the morning, pick up the glass look at the sun, then say, oh s..t too much glare these have to go back to B&H.

Andy W.

 

[Aquaplas]

Yes think it’s possible the 56 mm FL I mean good and with that big Pupil is also very stable in strai light.
but what I mean, when you search for a glare situation you will find it an all Binos. This is just Physical.
and for every viewer with other anatomy it will bi a bit different. But this absolutism here between Glare issues and absolut no glare I find not serious.
by the way the the 58 Zeiss FL is a real nice Alpha Bino. But not for me. The sides of the field is not good from Sharpness. Also the HTs. All ups and downs...

 

[BabyDov]

I suppose people think that if you are spending 3 grand on binoculars, you should be buying perfection. However, the perfect binoculars have yet to be made, regardless of price. Perhaps, there is a group of people, here, who won't justify spending that kind of money, even if they were perfect and need to nitpick the closest to perfection binoculars that have been made, so far. Or perhaps, it just makes them feel better with what they already own. If that's the case, I wish they would just keep to themselves. They only discourage people from trying these binoculars, who given the chance, might disagree and want to buy them.

Moreover, I am fortunate that I own the 8x42 NL and will not let any naysayer deminish the enjoyment of the best optics I have ever used. When I use these, I only see beauty. IMO, If people would only focus on the beauty they would never see glare, even if it was there.

 

[jan van daalen]

Guys I'm overwhelmed by all your concerns.
Thx, also on behalf of my family......

Jan

 

[henry link]

There's a simple standard that can be applied to glare in binoculars. Baffling has been properly done when a centered eye at the eye relief distance is not exposed to any unbaffled surface that can reflect non image forming light into the eye. It's true that many binoculars don't meet that standard and the Swarovski NL is one of them. I happily use an 8x42 NL and have found eye pupil positions and workarounds to handle the design flaw in the baffling. There's no loss of beauty in the image for me just because I know the baffling could have been done better.

 

[BabyDov]

There's a simple standard that can be applied to glare in binoculars. Baffling has been properly done when a centered eye at the eye relief distance is not exposed to any unbaffled surface that can reflect non image forming light into the eye. It's true that many binoculars don't meet that standard and the Swarovski NL is one of them. I happily use an 8x42 NL and have found eye pupil positions and workarounds to handle the design flaw in the baffling. There's no loss of beauty in the image for me just because I know the baffling could have been done better.

If it is such a simple standard to properly baffle and avoid glare, why has Swarovski, not to mention other manufacturers, not been able to meet this standard? Perhaps, it isn't that simple?

 

[bkdc]

Here’s hoping that Swarovski is listening to feedback and addresses the issue. I’m debating letting this lovely instrument go. It is almost perfect in many ways. I’ll have to give it a few more light outings and see.

 

[henry link]

If it is such a simple standard to properly baffle and avoid glare, why has Swarovski, not to mention other manufacturers, not been able to meet this standard? Perhaps, it isn't that simple?

I said the standard for evaluated complete success is simple. Either the sources of glare are blocked from entering the eye or they aren't to one degree or another.

The solution can be simple. The Nikon 8x30 EII, for one example, faces a similar potential glare problem as the NLs. Its solution is a thin shallow baffling cone just behind the objective cell. The back opening of the cone is just the right size and it's in just the right position to completely cover the shiny edge of the objective cell and because it's so close behind the objective its apparent position doesn't shift much to expose the glare if the eye becomes a little de-centered.

The baffling structure behind the objective in the NL is fairly elaborate, but it's not sized or positioned properly to complete cover the shiny surfaces in front of it. As a result the baffle between the prisms has to function as a back up. It also doesn't quite cover the surfaces with the potential to produce glare, leaving a sliver of exposed objective cell even when it's perfectly centered, and because it's so far behind the objective cell it doesn't stay centered on the objective lens if the eye is de-centered a little, leading sometimes to a fortunate blocking of the glare or sometimes to an unfortunate extra exposure of it (see the photos attached to post # 906). I little change in the position and/or size of the baffling close behind the objective would fix the problem just the way it's done in the Nikon 8x30 EII and others.

 

[[email protected]]

If it is such a simple standard to properly baffle and avoid glare, why has Swarovski, not to mention other manufacturers, not been able to meet this standard? Perhaps, it isn't that simple?

It is odd. A lot of Swarovski have glare besides the NL. Leicas seems to control glare a lot better in general, but they don't have the huge FOV of the NL. I think Swarovski is pushing the envelope of FOV, and consequently you are seeing the side effects in the form of glare. I think the NL has gone too far in trying to please the big FOV crowd and as a result a lot of people are selling their NL because of glare. I know I sold mine because of the omnipresent glare at the bottom of the FOV and finicky eye placement. You should not have to tolerate stuff like that on a $3K binocular.

 

[henry link]

Dennis, I don't know how many people besides you are selling their NLs because of "omnipresent glare" and "finicky eye placement". I'm not one of them. I would call the glare occasional, far from omnipresent, and controllable even at its worst. Once the best eyecup adjustment has been established eye placement is not finicky at all.

As for the NL field being too wide just look at the example of the Nikon EII above, a binocular with an 8.8 degree FOV and a small exit pupil and yet it handles glare very well thanks to just one properly sized and well placed baffle.